Think of the children!


——————————————————-

19 April 2007

We are constantly told that women are the ‘fairer’ sex, especially with regards to children, that women are caring and nurturing towards little ‘uns whilst us men are cruel and harsh with them.

Amongst many examples is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) which, in all its adverts, invariably implies children being beaten by their fathers. This is despite the fact that, whilst men may be responsible for the majority of sexual abuse of children, it is women who are responsible for the majority of physical abuse of children (and boys are more likely to be physically abused.)

Whenever you hear a child screaming and being smacked in public, it’s nearly always the kids mother belting the shit out of him/her (usually it’s a him.)

Plus women are far more likely to kill their babies than men are.

Then there’s abortion. 190,000 abortions are carried out in the UK each year, and it is estimated 1-in-3 women will have had an abortion by the age of 40. Some may be for genuine health reasons, or the rapes resulting in pregnancy, but most commonly it is because the woman just can’t be fucking arsed to have and raise a child. More than half of all women agree with abortion-on-demand. A couple of recent debates online that I’ve seen have involved mostly men disgusted at abortion, many women – usually bragging of having had an abortion, and that it was usually just because “I wasn’t ready to have kids.” – all telling men to basically shut up and fuck off, that we have no right to even have an opinion on abortion (though they never see the hypocrisy of saying men should be forced to take responsibility for their kids and pay Child Support whilst women should never have to take responsibility for their kids and actually not kill them.)

Then there are these Single Mothers By Choice, who – usually after stupidly leaving it far too late to land a husband – go for artificial insemination and deliberately deprive a child of a father and a proper family just because she wants a pet child. Most men I’ve mentioned this to – even guys who aren’t really committed anti-feminists – find the idea repulsive, yet plenty of women I encounter don’t see anything wrong with it.

Then we have daycare. Most women seem to think it is fine to dump their kids on a stranger for nearly every waking hour. A woman at work once explained that she wants kids (but not until her 30s) but “I’ll put them in daycare until they’re five, I don’t wanna have to take care of them.” Other women seemed to agree, and when I implied it was cruel to do that, they rolled their eyes and called me a chauvinist.

Of course, there are men who are cruel and harsh, who don’t like children, and mistreat their own. But they are a minority, and are frowned upon by other men. Most guys like the idea of children being raised by a mother in the child’s younger years (hence we avoid career women who, on the off-chance they have a child before its too late, are too quick to stick the kids in daycare; but will rarely let a man become a full-time father. Breadwinning is a man’s job it seems.) And, we also tend think that children should be raised by a mother and a father, not just by a selfish single mother.

Finally, most guys do not like the idea of babies being hacked up and flung in a bin because mummy couldn’t be arsed to have it and couldn’t stop herself from spreading her legs. At some online debate at the Daily Mail the other day, several women snootily comments that it’s “significant” that it was mostly “selfish” men who were against abortion whilst the women weren’t.

Yes indeed. It is significant that men (especially anti-feminists) tend to be against killing unborn children whilst a lot of women (and virtually all feminists) are in favour of it. It kind of shows just which sex and which side of the feminist/anti-feminist war is not very compassionate towards children after all.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:31 PM
——————————————————-

At 6:02 PM, Tainted said…

Technically, I don’t think abortion should be banned – it’s my overriding belief that personal freedom should be paramount over state intervention.

Doesn’t mean I like it when a baby is aborted. But it chills me to the bone to think of the violence and destruction if it were banned. You know what radical femtards can be like. They’re as bad as the retards who blew shit up because of the Mohammed cartoons.

——————————————————-

At 6:32 PM, Anonymous said…

You are right Duncan..the majority of men DO care a hell of a lot about their offspring -and getting them into the world in one piece.I can’t comment more as all my kids are alive ..read my lips.Suffice it to say I think abortion on demand is immoral and self defeats society badly.
As for me..I would never have relations with a woman who had used this easy way out. I once met a woman socially who had three such escapes and when she saw my face as she told me..she commented- “I wouldn’t have anything more to do with her now !”…. She was ‘dead’ right.
PS Abuse/Incest cases are a different matter ,of course,but what % are these?
5k

——————————————————-

At 7:47 PM, Anonymous said…

What dummies! Those first five years are the best. The hardest, but still the best. I have been, reluctantly, back in the Nation of Hell to visit kids, and have spent considerable time with my 8 month old grandson.

He loves to be walked to sleep. I can tell you, there is no feeling like holding a baby, and he tucks that little head in next to your collarbone, and falls asleep. It was just like that with my son 31 years ago.

I agree with others that marriage or giving women your genetic material in the US or nations under its influence is a really bad idea as long as the laws are like this. But, my feelings about kids is such that I do urge those who want kids to move to a nation with better divorce laws, such as my beloved rural Mexico.

AW are doing enough damage to men. Don’t let them keep you from having kids.

Am I saying having kids is worth moving to another nation, which is a tremendous task? Yep, sure am for the vast majority of men who really like kids.

——————————————————-

At 7:52 PM, Peregrine John said…

As an old friend of mine is fond of saying, “fairer sex” refers to appearance, not to any innate sense of justice.

——————————————————-

At 8:04 PM, Anonymous said…

Studies by anti-abortion groups show that women who become pregnant by rape generally do not have an abortion. Rape victims needing abortions is just another straw used successfully by pro-abortion groups. Roe v. Wade in 1973 received national sympathy and financial support because the fiends claimed publicly that Norma Corvey had been raped. They did not say that in court papers, because it was not true. (By the way, Norma is now a born-again Christian who believes abortion is wrong.)

Tainted’s view is somewhat weak. We gotta’ let women kill their babies, or they will kill their babies????

When, not if, the Muslims take over, the abortion industry will not go underground, it will cease. I am told the Muslims have some kind of chiropractic techniques, something special done with cold, sharp steel, that enables women to keep their knees firmly together.

The reason women are out of control is because they are allowed to do anything they want, anything! The reason they are so horrified by elimination of partial birth abortion is because it’s the first time in over 40 years they have heard the word, NO.

Before we eliminate abortion on demand, women will have learned what NO means. And, when they commit violence and destruction, we will start converting prisons now filled on false rape and sex abuse charges against men, into women’s prisons. Plus male custody will be much more common.

Actually, that isn’t true. Women respond to “the whip” much better than men do. Once the word gets out women are going to be treated like men in all parts of the law, within 15 minutes they will completely change their behavior.

They act like skanks out of control simply because there is no control of women at all.

Anonymous age 65

——————————————————-

At 9:10 PM, K. said…

Any “mother” who can look down at her stomach and see nothing but a parasite is no woman at all.

——————————————————-

At 10:01 PM, Tainted said…

anonymous age 65:

“Tainted’s view is somewhat weak. We gotta’ let women kill their babies, or they will kill their babies????

That wasn’t what I said. Please re-read my statement.

And I don’t subscribe to the rhetorical usage of “killing babies”. It is frequently used as a demonising term by those who are opposed to it entirely.

As I have already stated and will stress again: I don’t like abortion but don’t want it banned.

——————————————————-

At 1:22 AM, mfsob said…

Duncan, this post was dead on, insightful and also very logical … which means it’ll go right over most women’s heads, while men will be cheering, “Nothin’ but net!”

——————————————————-

At 3:37 AM, Anonymous said…

Tainted,

Respectfully, You sound parallel to Chamberlain in 1938 when he met with Hitler and Mussolini. “Peace in our time,” and where did it get us? Mr 65 has an excellent point: The Femtards need to hear the word NO. We must stop walking on egg shells just because the feminists and their mangina sidekicks *might* get violent. Should we not oppose divorce settlements because we might have to deal with the wrath of Femzilla?! Courage isn’t the absence of fear….it’s the ability to press on and do what must be done in spite of the fear. I personally have been fired from jobs (and trespassed off company properties) due to my standing up to feminist bitches for their hate ideology, I’ve recieved death threats from ex’s,stalked by ’em, attacked by their new mangina bfs, had my car keyed, tires flattened, graffiti “die you fucking pig” on my house, false accusations of harassment, threatening violence, stalking, rape, and this is just a summary! I can’t MAKE it as bad as it’s been……but like Churchill, I will NEVER surrender.

As far as not subscribing to the term “killing babies”….erm…. that’s what the hell abortion is, always has been, and always will be!!!! Let’s face it – it happens because women don’t keep their damn legs closed! Back to the chastity belt for the slags! No more throwing hot dogs down hallways heh.

Dan

——————————————————-

At 3:40 AM, Anonymous said…

I agree that tainted’s logic is strange. “I think abortion is murder but murder should be legal in this case.” Either abortion truly is murder or it is just another medical procedure. How can you support legalized murder, especially for reasons of convenience?

——————————————————-

At 9:54 AM, Anonymous said…

Ok Tainted 6:02..when does a new life gain the ‘personal freedom’ to have a life and NOT be excised from humanity??
The moment of conception, 10 weeks- when it looks human or when it can feel pain? Please amplify for me….’state intervention’ is a bit crucial to the unborn -when it gives permissions not qualified morally.
The threat of self harm by women is just another blag on the same old one stringed ‘womyns rights’ banjo.
Real men play a million stringed guitar for the helpless and innocent and hold hopes for a better world than this apology of society..Geddit? 5k

——————————————————-

At 6:36 PM, Tainted said…

Dan-

Respectfully, I believe I’m going to have to agree to disagree. I value this community too much to sour it.

————
anon 3:40,AM

Please quote me where I used the word ‘murder’. You are putting words in my mouth.

————
anon 9:54 AM

I don’t know. You tell me. You seem to have it all figured out.

Is a fertilized cell a human being? I’d say not. Human beings are not a single cell.

Is a foetus one day before birth a human? I’d say yes.

So somewhere between those times, a line has to be drawn somewhere to determine when it becomes a human. But where? Beats me. Why don’t you give me your definition of human and list your criteria for calling it one. Then justify giving it rights but not other animals on a similar level.

I would say when the foetus can survive outside the mother without significant medical intervention. Which, oddly enough, is the cutoff point for abortions in most countries I know which allow abortion, barring extreme health risks to the mother.

And, personally, making the baby into a punishment for having sex is somewhat of a poor excuse to ban something. Kind of like banning someone from medical aid because they cause an accident while drink-driving.

I sympathise with the cause and the reasons, but I am very much inclined to be swayed by arguments of reason as opposed to emotion.

——————————————————-

At 11:14 PM, Anonymous said…

Neat bounce back Taint..but you admit to not knowing the putative status of the unborn before being whacked apart etc.There’s no bureaucratic getout for your trusting mind here, is there? Do you work in an official capacity? Have you any ’emotional’ interest in morality questions.
To give YOU an answer..I’ll say human life has potential from the moment of conception and must deserve respect.
Not a punishment,but a gift to both involved in the act.
As to your reference to animal life equivalence (strange point) what animal gives abortions,other than mankind? Nature may be cruel..but not stupid!
5k

——————————————————-

At 6:56 AM, Anonymous said…

“Please quote me where I used the word ‘murder’. You are putting words in my mouth.”

If you do not believe that abortion is murder, then what about abortion do you find unlikeable? “Doesn’t mean I like it when a baby is aborted.” (your words).

If abortion is not murder then it is just like removing a small tumor or other minor surgery. I think that most pro-abortion people believe that abortion is murder on some level, it is just that they don’t care that it is. They can’t possibly practice abstinence until marriage, even at the price of murder.

——————————————————-

At 1:29 PM, Tainted said…

Neat bounce back Taint..but you admit to not knowing the putative status of the unborn before being whacked apart etc.

No I don,t and neither do you. All you can provide are assertions that life begins at conception. I fail to see how a cell should be given the same rights it’s fully-realised human mother should have.

There’s no bureaucratic getout for your trusting mind here, is there? Do you work in an official capacity? Have you any ’emotional’ interest in morality questions.

Of course I do. But I don’t throw reason to the wind in the process by pretending a fertilised cell or foetus is a baby and abortion is therefore baby killing.

And as for ‘beurocratic getout’, the law as it stands is a sensible compromise between opposing and irreconcilable viewpoints. If you think it should be earlier or not at all, you must justify it.

To give YOU an answer..I’ll say human life has potential from the moment of conception and must deserve respect.]

A potential person isn’t a person. A sperm has potential to become a person, it doesn’t stop me washing the buggers off after I finish jacking it. Or am I (Along with pretty much every man alive) a mass murderer?

And if a ferilised cell being aborted is murder, is miscarriage manslaughter?

Not a punishment,but a gift to both involved in the act.

Kind of like gifts from your great-aunt Valerie, they aren’t always wanted. Wherein lies the problem.

As to your reference to animal life equivalence (strange point) what animal gives abortions,other than mankind? Nature may be cruel..but not stupid!
5k

You might be interested to know somewhere between 30% and 80% (I get different numbers from different people, let’s go with 30) of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted by the mother before the mother even knows she’s pregnant. Nature is certainly cruel.

However you entirely missed the point of my challenge: If you can name criteria for a human being worthy of protection that includes the fertilised egg, then you have to justify why creatures and cells and other lifeforms that also fall under your criteria are not likewise worthy of the same rights. Otherwise it’s an argumentative fallacy known as special pleading.

——————————————————-

At 1:39 PM, Tainted said…

If you do not believe that abortion is murder, then what about abortion do you find unlikeable? “Doesn’t mean I like it when a baby is aborted.” (your words).

I find it dislikable because it has enormous potential for immoral behaviour, for friction and for difficulty. And my language “Baby is aborted” was a slip-up on my part.

If abortion is not murder then it is just like removing a small tumor or other minor surgery.

Isn’t it? Does your argument really boil down to a negative appeal to consequence?

I think that most pro-abortion people believe that abortion is murder on some level, it is just that they don’t care that it is. They can’t possibly practice abstinence until marriage, even at the price of murder.

Assertions and strawmen, oh how I love thee.

——————————————————-

At 3:19 AM, Anonymous said…

tainted:

A man’s sperm is not the same as a fertilized egg. A one-celled fertilized egg (i.e. a zygote) has a decent chance of growing into a full human being. Your freshly ejaculated sperm from jerking-off will just turn into a stain if not cleaned up. The zygote has all the DNA it will ever need to become a unique person.

If you believe in a human soul (I don’t, BTW) then it is reasonable to think that human life begins at conception. The soul must enter the body at some point; when is that? I can’t prove that life begins at conception but you can’t disprove it either. Considering what we are discussing (potential murder), it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not have an abortion.

I’m an atheist, but I still think that most unborn children have lives worth living. Even early term abortions stop someone from being born who could have had a full life, even if the foetus is not human at the time. Again, feminists support abortion entirely for selfish reasons and do not care whether or not it is murder.

——————————————————-

At 10:10 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

And I don’t subscribe to the rhetorical usage of “killing babies. It is frequently used as a demonising term by those who are opposed to it entirely.

The phrase, “killing babies” is far more accurate than the truly rhetorical usage of words like, “choice.” The general population seems to be either too drugged or brainwashed by television, school, etc. to think beyond a certain point. Unfortunately cliche words like “choice” have been successfully used to mask the criminality of abortion.

If women were forced to watch an abortion take place beforehand, I’d wager at least some would have second thoughts. If not, they’re desensitized psychos.

As I have already stated and will stress again: I don’t like abortion but don’t want it banned.

To me, that’s likened to suggesting, “I don’t like slavery but I don’t want it abolished, cause I’m not sure if blacks are really human.” A person with this peculiar position could just as well list differences between blacks and whites as so-called evidence. I find it difficult to believe that you honestly can’t determine if undeveloped human fetuses are human or not. It’s a no-brainer.

Is a fertilized cell a human being? I’d say not. Human beings are not a single cell.

If it isn’t a human being then what it is? You’re not making much sense to me and this hair splitting does nothing to justify abortion.

Is a foetus one day before birth a human? I’d say yes.

Good. Am I correct in assuming that you approve of banning Partial-Birth Abortion then? Also, at how many weeks into pregnancy is abortion justifiable to you?

So somewhere between those times, a line has to be drawn somewhere to determine when it becomes a human. But where? Beats me. Why don’t you give me your definition of human and list your criteria for calling it one.

A human is a being that comes exclusively from humans. . . Understand? Inhuman is a murderous doctor remorselessly hacking a distinguishable human fetus to pieces. Dict.org provides some good definitions for the word “human.”

Then justify giving it rights but not other animals on a similar level.

No other animal is on a similar level. Last I checked, pigs still don’t have the capacity to fly planes. In case you hadn’t realized, we are the highest form of animal life on Earth. Fetuses should have the same right to life that you and I were granted. How lower animals are treated is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder. It’s another subject.

I would say when the foetus can survive outside the mother without significant medical intervention. Which, oddly enough, is the cutoff point for abortions in most countries I know which allow abortion, barring extreme health risks to the mother.

Plenty of people are born undeveloped or deformed in different ways and require medical assistance. Should we abort people with pacemakers or folks that temporarily require significant medical intervention? According to your contorted logic, these individuals are not human. You should follow your logic to its bitter end. This particular argument for abortion is about the weakest there is and I’ve likely seen them all.

And, personally, making the baby into a punishment for having sex is somewhat of a poor excuse to ban something. Kind of like banning someone from medical aid because they cause an accident while drink-driving.

Have you heard of adoption? There are people willing to adopt babies that would otherwise be killed. The main reason to ban abortion is because it’s murder. I’m afraid your analogy doesn’t connect. Someone who requires medial aid probably has no choice in the matter and there are alternatives to driving intoxicated. Apples to oranges . . . Abortion isn’t medical aid and usually consists of unnecessarily exterminating a human life at the conveyance of an irresponsible woman.

These women could choose to remain abstinent until marriage but don’t. The problem is that they can slut around and no longer face the god-given consequences. In fact, imposing strict consequences for many other criminal acts (other than abortion) would cure a great deal of societal ills.

If you ask me, doctors who perform unnecessary abortions should be charged with first degree murder and tried in a court of law. These sexually unrestrained witches getting abortions should be charged with second degree murder. To obtain that level of justice, laws should become perpetually harsher and repeat offenders ought to spend some time in jail. There’s no reason abortion shouldn’t be slowly repealed. I’ve never seen sensible rationale for murdering fetuses.

Furthermore, If women were to violently protest on a grand scale, it just goes to show that they’re criminals who belong behind bars. But I don’t think that would happen since the last thing to their advantage would be a civil war. In my observations, leftists are generally cowards who prey on the defenseless and revert to being pseudo pacifists when it’s expedient.

Respectfully, I believe I’m going to have to agree to disagree. I value this community too much to sour it.

I appreciate your consideration but surely you had premonition that abortion is a touchy topic. That said, we can still strongly disagree and hopefully not start a flame war.

-John

If we see ourselves as meat then meat we shall become.

——————————————————-

At 12:51 PM, Anonymous said…

Cheers! John… for saving me the trouble for that reply.
Incidentally,I follow Buddhist thought (also atheistic -no God)and though they don’t subscribe to the concept of ‘soul’ have an exceedingly high respect for life,for all it’s concurrent problems.
I suspect a guilt trip lurking hereabouts.
Maybe I’m just TOO sensitive ;-\ …..but generally in good company.
5k

——————————————————-

At 2:43 PM, Tainted said…

A man’s sperm is not the same as a fertilized egg. A one-celled fertilized egg (i.e. a zygote) has a decent chance of growing into a full human being. Your freshly ejaculated sperm from jerking-off will just turn into a stain if not cleaned up. The zygote has all the DNA it will ever need to become a unique person.

So miscarriage is manslaughter then?

Once again, the potential person argument. A potential human life may begin at conception, but a potential person isn’t a person. We don’t give rights to our cells because they aren’t people, even thought they are ‘human’ cells.

If you believe in a human soul (I don’t, BTW) then it is reasonable to think that human life begins at conception. The soul must enter the body at some point; when is that? I can’t prove that life begins at conception but you can’t disprove it either.

If you don’t believe in the soul, then quibbling over when a soul enters is pointless. And no, I can’t disprove life begins at conception, but we are talking of personhood not life. If it were purely a matter of life, this would be a simple matter of comparing the foetus to an organ to be removed and the pro-life wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But the problem is it will become a human being at some point which is where a number of people develop moral objections to abortion.

Considering what we are discussing (potential murder), it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not have an abortion.

It may be murder, but additional argumentation is needed to show that. Specifically, you have to address the question of the right to bodily integrity. Most people do elevate the right to control one’s own body over the right of others to live in certain circumstances; we don’t call people murderers if they refuse to donate their organs, for instance. Why is giving the use of your bodily tissues to a zygote or fetus different from donating your bodily tissues to someone who is already born? I personally don’t think it is that different. Abortion may be immoral in some circumstances, but I hesitate to call it murder, and I don’t think it should be outlawed.

I’m an atheist, but I still think that most unborn children have lives worth living. Even early term abortions stop someone from being born who could have had a full life,

Or the child could grow up to be a drug dealer or criminal. It’s pointless saying the child could be this or that and using it as a defence.

Again, feminists support abortion entirely for selfish reasons and do not care whether or not it is murder.

Rape. Birth-control failure.

——————————————————-

At 3:54 PM, Tainted said…

The phrase, “killing babies” is far more accurate than the truly rhetorical usage of words like, “choice.”

A popular thinking exercise: you are in a burning building and can only save either a baby in one room or a rack of fertilised eggs in another. You only have time to save one. Which do you save?

If women were forced to watch an abortion take place beforehand, I’d wager at least some would have second thoughts. If not, they’re desensitized psychos.

Perhaps, but it isn’t up to you to make their minds up for them. No more than it is to me to try and encourage a woman who will most likely pass on a debilitating genetic illness to her baby to abort it.

To me, that’s likened to suggesting, “I don’t like slavery but I don’t want it abolished, cause I’m not sure if blacks are really human.” A person with this peculiar position could just as well list differences between blacks and whites as so-called evidence.

Non-sequitur. Slavery has nothing to do with abortion and the analogy is flawed. As I’ve already mentioned, the vast majority of people prize bodily integrity over the right of someone or something else to use it against their will. The slavery analogy falls apart.

I find it difficult to believe that you honestly can’t determine if undeveloped human fetuses are human or not. It’s a no-brainer.

The issue is person hood and when the rights of a person kick in. A dead body is a human, but we don’t give it rights, now do we? What is the difference between a fresh human body and a foetus? One is alive? Is that the extent of your reasoning? If it has human DNA and is alive, it has the same rights as a fully realised human?

If it isn’t a human being then what it is? You’re not making much sense to me and this hair splitting does nothing to justify abortion.

It’s human, but not a “human being” in the way you’re trying to put it across. I define humanity as something more than what it’s DNA says it is.

Good. Am I correct in assuming that you approve of banning Partial-Birth Abortion then?

Partial-birth abortions are red herrings used by the pro-life. They are rarely used and only in circumstances in which the mothers life is in jeopardy. Nothing more than an appeal to emotion, which is another logical fallacy.

Also, at how many weeks into pregnancy is abortion justifiable to you?

Until the baby can survive outside the woman’s womb. An arbitrary line, yes, but more reasonable – and justifiable given my support of bodily integrity – than conception.

A human is a being that comes exclusively from humans. . . Understand?

Define “being”. Human sperm and eggs are exclusively human. Human organs are exclusively human (In terms of DNA). Your definition is useless.

Inhuman is a murderous doctor remorselessly hacking a distinguishable human fetus to pieces.

Another appeal to emotion and also referring to the rarely-used partial birth abortion. Misleading Vividness is a fallacy where you describe something in great detail to convince someone it is a problem, even if it is an exceptional occurrence. It seems to occur often among pro-life.

Dict.org provides some good definitions for the word “human.”

People and philosophers and have been debating since the time they were first able to debate about what it means to be human. I find it difficult to believe the sum of human value, what it means to be human can be summed up in a single sentence by a dictionary.

So I’ll ask again: What are your criteria for judging something to be human which also includes zygotes and foetus’s?

No other animal is on a similar level. Last I checked, pigs still don’t have the capacity to fly planes. In case you hadn’t realized, we are the highest form of animal life on Earth.

You still misunderstand my point. I was asking you to define, as I have just asked, your criteria for a human which includes a foetus, then justify why life forms which also meet your criteria don’t deserve those rights. “Because it’s human!” doesn’t cut it.

Fetuses should have the same right to life that you and I were granted.

But when do those rights start?

How lower animals are treated is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder. It’s another subject.

Once again, you misunderstood my point. read my statement above the last paragraph I wrote.

Plenty of people are born undeveloped or deformed in different ways and require medical assistance. Should we abort people with pacemakers or folks that temporarily require significant medical intervention?

Folks who require pacemakers and who require temporary significant medical intervention are, presumably, already born. At which point their rights to protection from being killed are already in effect. Your point is moot.

According to your contorted logic, these individuals are not human. You should follow your logic to its bitter end. This particular argument for abortion is about the weakest there is and I’ve likely seen them all.

What, that people who are already born already have their rights bestowed? Your ad-hominems notwithstanding, I’ve yet to see a valid logical argument from you, nor one which didn’t require hyperbole or emotional rhetoric.

Have you heard of adoption? There are people willing to adopt babies that would otherwise be killed.

Do you believe in a persons right to control their body? Or does that right stop when it comes to women? Would you support forcing someone to donate organs to someone else because it would save a life? Support mandatory blood donation?

The main reason to ban abortion is because it’s murder.

In your opinion.

I’m afraid your analogy doesn’t connect. Someone who requires medial aid probably has no choice in the matter and there are alternatives to driving intoxicated. Apples to oranges . .

Actually my analogy works since, in the paragraph below this one, you already imply that the woman is at fault for having sex you don’t approve of. Therefore, she should be forced to see through the consequences of her actions.

Drink-driving is a choice. If you drink-drive, you implicitly accept the risks of having an accident. If abortion should be denied because the woman was irresponsible and should see through the consequences, the exact same logic applies to drink driving. As you have suggested I do, follow your own logic to its conclusion.

Abortion isn’t medical aid and usually consists of unnecessarily exterminating a human life at the conveyance of an irresponsible woman.

see above.

These women could choose to remain abstinent until marriage but don’t. The problem is that they can slut around and no longer face the god-given consequences. In fact, imposing strict consequences for many other criminal acts (other than abortion) would cure a great deal of societal ills.

Again see above. You clearly care more about the actions of the mother and punishing her for it than you care about the child.

You neglect to mention that proper sex education and good access to contraception and birth control would also reduce abortion, like it does in Scandinavian countries. Or is punishing and guilt-tripping the mother more important than actually reducing the number of abortions performed?

If you ask me, doctors who perform unnecessary abortions should be charged with first degree murder and tried in a court of law.
These sexually unrestrained witches getting abortions should be charged with second degree murder. To obtain that level of justice, laws should become perpetually harsher and repeat offenders ought to spend some time in jail. There’s no reason abortion shouldn’t be slowly repealed. I’ve never seen sensible rationale for murdering fetuses.

More emotional rhetoric. And for sensible rationale, how about if the child is threatening the mother’s life? The situation which results in the oh-so-horrible partial birth abortion? And I’ll ask agin, since it seems to have slipped by: Is miscarriage manslaughter?

——————————————————-

At 4:34 PM, Tainted said…

Apologies for splitting this off; I accidentally didn’t copy it over in my previous response:

I appreciate your consideration but surely you had premonition that abortion is a touchy topic. That said, we can still strongly disagree and hopefully not start a flame war.

Let’s hope so. It’s not like it’s possible to discuss this topic without tempers flaring. Nevertheless, I will try to keep my arguments as calm as possible.

——————————————————-

At 10:32 PM, Anonymous said…

tainted:

“So miscarriage is manslaughter then?”

Miscarriage is not manslaughter unless it is willfully induced. If someone other than the pregnant woman induces a miscarriage for her pregnancy, that person will be charged with a crime. If someone kills a pregnant woman, then that person is charged with double murder. There is a clear inconsistency in the law. Only if a woman and her doctor decide to kill her unborn child, then it is legal.

It is ambiguous as to what is human life with rights and what isn’t, which is why we are having this argument. I can only offer the argument that we should be cautious and ban abortions, as it could be murder even at conception. You admit you can’t prove that human life does not begin at conception.

A woman’s absolute right over her body is not recognized by the law even today. If a pregnant woman drinks a bottle of whiskey every day while pregnant, she will be charged with a crime. If a woman has a late term abortion in a country where it is not legal (but early term abortions are permitted), she will be charged with a crime. Abortion laws take into consideration the possibility that the fetus is human and that a woman does not have an unlimited right to control her own body.

——————————————————-

At 8:58 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

A popular thinking exercise: you are in a burning building and can only save either a baby in one room or a rack of fertilised eggs in another. You only have time to save one. Which do you save?

When I talk about abortion, I’m not referring to racks of fertilized eggs, so your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

If you want to know whether or not I think fertilized eggs are human life, the answer is “duh.”

A popular thinking exercise: you are in a burning building and can only save either a baby in one room or your favorite animal on a similar level in another. You only have time to save one. Which do you save and what is the animal on a similar level?

Perhaps, but it isn’t up to you to make their minds up for them. No more than it is to me to try and encourage a woman who will most likely pass on a debilitating genetic illness to her baby to abort it.

Hogwash! Forcing them to watch an abortion take place beforehand wouldn’t be making up their minds for them. It would rather be forcing them to witness what they’re about to have done, so they can reflect on alternatives.

Non-sequitur. Slavery has nothing to do with abortion and the analogy is flawed. As I’ve already mentioned, the vast majority of people prize bodily integrity over the right of someone or something else to use it against their will. The slavery analogy falls apart.

Ah so that’s where you focus. You failed the test. The analogy isn’t about slavery. It has nothing to do with slavery per se. Forgive me. I meant that this particular justification for abortion is the same used to justify slavery. For clarity let’s exchange slavery for the more accurate word “murder.”

Saying, “slavery has nothing to do with abortion,” doesn’t address the point. I still don’t see how your mentality is any different than a sympathizer listing off silly differences to justify slaughtering innocent people deemed inhuman. There’s no doubt in my mind that fetuses are living human beings.

The issue is person hood and when the rights of a person kick in. A dead body is a human, but we don’t give it rights, now do we? What is the difference between a fresh human body and a foetus? One is alive? Is that the extent of your reasoning? If it has human DNA and is alive, it has the same rights as a fully realised human?

Unbelievable. The difference between a dead human body and a fetus is the same difference between a dead body and a living one. Yes, a living human fetus should have the same right to life as a fully developed human slob watching Oprah. Your comparison between a dead body and a living fetus is completely absurd. I can imagine you’d have to go to great lengths in reason to explain how a dead body is equatable to a living human fetus.

It’s human, but not a “human being” in the way you’re trying to put it across. I define humanity as something more than what it’s DNA says it is.

It’s a human but not a human being? Nice one. Forgive me but I can’t quite follow that. Excuse me if I take what the DNA says it is over your god inspired concoctions.

“Good. Am I correct in assuming that you approve of banning Partial-Birth Abortion then?”

Partial-birth abortions are red herrings used by the pro-life. They are rarely used and only in circumstances in which the mothers life is in jeopardy. Nothing more than an appeal to emotion, which is another logical fallacy.

Your claim that, “Partial-Birth Abortion is used only in circumstances in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy” is absolutely false. But go ahead and list the bogus excuses if you want. Instead of spreading feminist misinformation, you should have taken a closer look at the link I provided you with before. Go Here, Here, Here, and Here then get back to me on your claims on Partial-Birth Abortion. And when you get done reading that I’ve plenty more. You can’t pull the wool over my eyes or anybody elses who’s informed on the subject, Missy.

And It’s probably logically fallacious to imply logical fallacy where there is none, but I didn’t start this discussion to school you on logical fallacies. You’re overly presumptive to say the least.

This is a common question and not an appeal to anything. Anytime I talk about abortion you can just assume I’m excluding the life of the mother being in danger – which ironically is usually a red-herring used by pro baby killers. You know what, If I were that mother whose life was in danger, I’d yield my life for the child if possible. I guarantee it.

Partial-Birth Abortion is infanticide, which slimy willie (Bill Clinton) vetoed the ban on despite the fact that the exception of the mother’s life being in jeopardy was included.

“Also, at how many weeks into pregnancy is abortion justifiable to you?”

Until the baby can survive outside the woman’s womb. An arbitrary line, yes, but more reasonable – and justifiable given my support of bodily integrity – than conception.

Yes, your arbitrary lines are highly inconsistent and unreliable. Bodily integrity my. . . Why should the temporary inconvenience of a woman permanently trump the bodily integrity of an unborn baby? Given enough time, he will support himself outside the womb, where he will magically morph into a human being. I don’t consider your answer reasonable since technically no baby can survive outside the mother’s womb without being supported. The baby’s temporary dependence on the mother shouldn’t stand as a potential death sentence.

“A human is a being that comes exclusively from humans. . . Understand? ”

Define “being”.

No.

Human sperm and eggs are exclusively human. Human organs are exclusively human (In terms of DNA). Your definition is useless.

The offspring of two humans is always a living human being unless there’s an abortion or unfortunate death. I really have no idea what sort of definition you want. It looks like you’re straining at a gnat for lack of a substantial position on abortion. My definition is the bomb.

“Inhuman is a murderous doctor remorselessly hacking a distinguishable human fetus to pieces. ”

Another appeal to emotion and also referring to the rarely-used partial birth abortion. Misleading Vividness is a fallacy where you describe something in great detail to convince someone it is a problem, even if it is an exceptional occurrence. It seems to occur often among pro-life.

I was speaking about abortion in general here. Last I checked most abortions occur at around 12 weeks and 90% are unnecessary. At the first trimester babies are recognizable.

You’d do well to lay off that knee-jerk fallacy bit or at least hold yourself to the same ridiculous standard you’re holding me to. You can’t just throw around accusations of logical fallacy as casually as modern women have sex . . It also increases hostility and we don’t want that now do we?

“Dict.org provides some good definitions for the word ‘human.'”

People and philosophers and have been debating since the time they were first able to debate about what it means to be human. I find it difficult to believe the sum of human value, what it means to be human can be summed up in a single sentence by a dictionary.

The philosophical question “What does it mean to be human?” is separate from what a human literally is. You seem to be confusing philosophy with the literal definition for a human. Fetuses are undeniably human, so in order to justify the act of abortion you seem to be reverting to a subjective philosophical question, which has nothing to do with how humans are literally classified.

So I’ll ask again: What are your criteria for judging something to be human which also includes zygotes and foetus’s?

I believe I have already answered your question. I’ll stick with the literal definition from the dictionary, if you don’t mind. There’s no need to ask a silly question twice.

“No other animal is on a similar level. Last I checked, pigs still don’t have the capacity to fly planes. In case you hadn’t realized, we are the highest form of animal life on Earth.”

You still misunderstand my point. I was asking you to define, as I have just asked, your criteria for a human which includes a foetus, then justify why life forms which also meet your criteria don’t deserve those rights. Because it’s human!” doesn’t cut it.

What? How many other animals are being aborted? Give me an example of life forms that deserve the same rights as human fetuses. Yes, I still misunderstand your point. You seem to want a definition somewhere between philosophy and reality. The fruit of your philosophy is death.

“Fetuses should have the same right to life that you and I were granted.”

But when do those rights start?”

I’d say at least from the moment the baby has a heartbeat.

“How lower animals are treated is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder. It’s another subject.”

Once again, you misunderstood my point. read my statement above the last paragraph I wrote.

Yes, I misunderstand your point. An example might prove to be helpful.

“Plenty of people are born undeveloped or deformed in different ways and require medical assistance. Should we abort people with pacemakers or folks that temporarily require significant medical intervention?”

Folks who require pacemakers and who require temporary significant medical intervention are, presumably, already born. At which point their rights to protection from being killed are already in effect. Your point is moot.

No it isn’t. I don’t concur with your premise that being born somehow makes one more human. My point withstanding does away with your initial excuse for permitting abortion.

“According to your contorted logic, these individuals are not human. You should follow your logic to its bitter end. This particular argument for abortion is about the weakest there is and I’ve likely seen them all.”

What, that people who are already born already have their rights bestowed? Your ad-hominems notwithstanding, I’ve yet to see a valid logical argument from you, nor one which didn’t require hyperbole or emotional rhetoric.

Again, I see an unborn baby as someone who should already have their rights bestowed. I’ve addressed your points with valid logical arguments. Also, you should more carefully distinguish between emotional rhetoric and opinion. You’ve yet to demonstrate how anything I’ve said is logically invalid. Just spouting out that claim doesn’t make it so.

“Have you heard of adoption? There are people willing to adopt babies that would otherwise be killed.”

Do you believe in a persons right to control their body? Or does that right stop when it comes to women? Would you support forcing someone to donate organs to someone else because it would save a life? Support mandatory blood donation?

Yeah, women should exercise their right to control their body and stop slutting around for god’s sake and for the sake of the innocent ones. Anyway, a fetus is a separate person apart from the woman’s body. I don’t believe in freedom to the point of murder and mayhem. Her rights stops where another life is threatened with respect to abortion and driving intoxicated. Her rights stop where another’s begins and it begins in the womb.

If there were an organ shortage, I’d be in favor of incentives for getting more people on board for organ donation. The same goes for blood donation.

“I’m afraid your analogy doesn’t connect. Someone who requires medial aid probably has no choice in the matter and there are alternatives to driving intoxicated. Apples to oranges . .”

Actually my analogy works since, in the paragraph below this one, you already imply that the woman is at fault for having sex you don’t approve of. Therefore, she should be forced to see through the consequences of her actions.

Over 90% of all abortions are not performed for the case of rape, incest or the mother’s life being in danger. There’s no logical reason for implying abortion is, in general medical aid.

Drink-driving is a choice. If you drink-drive, you implicitly accept the risks of having an accident. If abortion should be denied because the woman was irresponsible and should see through the consequences, the exact same logic applies to drink driving. As you have suggested I do, follow your own logic to its conclusion.

Drink-driving? If you drive drunk you put the lives of others at risk. I don’t support the idea of people driving around intoxicated. Like with abortion, there are alternatives to driving drunk. What point are you trying to make? My logical conclusion is that drunk driving should remain illegal; women being allowed to kill sacred babies (they’re not worty to touch) should become illegal too. I followed my logic to its reasonable conclusion.

“Abortion isn’t medical aid and usually consists of unnecessarily exterminating a human life at the conveyance of an irresponsible woman.”

see above.

To drunk driving being a choice? In my opinion drunk driving, like needlessly getting abortions is an act that should be penalized.

“These women could choose to remain abstinent until marriage but don’t. The problem is that they can slut around and no longer face the god-given consequences. In fact, imposing strict consequences for many other criminal acts (other than abortion) would cure a great deal of societal ills. ”

Again see above. You clearly care more about the actions of the mother and punishing her for it than you care about the child.

That’s a baseless assertion for my motivation. Yeah I just want to punish women, that’s it. I thought I made it clear that I believe such societal ills would be reduced if strict laws were imposed. My motivation for punishing women stems from wanting to see less abortions. My interest in the actions of “mothers” surface only when such actions affect children negatively.

You neglect to mention that proper sex education and good access to contraception and birth control would also reduce abortion, like it does in Scandinavian countries. Or is punishing and guilt-tripping the mother more important than actually reducing the number of abortions performed?

Punishing and shaming the woman (not mother) who has her baby killed is a viable deterrent. I wasn’t aware of any such countries that have a significantly reduced abortion rate due solely to the solution you mentioned. That being the case, I’d naturally neglect to mention it. Here in America Sex-Ed has been a complete disaster. Women have access to contraception and birth control as far as I know. Regardless, I would still want to see abortion banned under the law since it’s a criminal act. I don’t see a reason one method would necessarily have to be selected over the other. If what you say is true then enacting both at the same time should reduce abortion even more.

“If you ask me, doctors who perform unnecessary abortions should be charged with first degree murder and tried in a court of law.

These sexually unrestrained witches getting abortions should be charged with second degree murder. To obtain that level of justice, laws should become perpetually harsher and repeat offenders ought to spend some time in jail. There’s no reason abortion shouldn’t be slowly repealed. I’ve never seen sensible rationale for murdering fetuses.”

More emotional rhetoric. And for sensible rationale, how about if the child is threatening the mother’s life? The situation which results in the oh-so-horrible partial birth abortion? And I’ll ask again, since it seems to have slipped by: Is miscarriage manslaughter?

What I said has nothing to do with emotional rhetoric. It’s an opinion based on what I believe should be done to suppress the practice of unnecessary abortions. A child threatening the mother’s life is in fact extremely rare, so your rationale is not sensible.

I was speaking of standard abortions here. If the mother’s life were threatened, and there were no other alternative (to killing the baby) then I probably wouldn’t even be discussing this.

Is miscarriage manslaughter? Are you pulling my leg? Have you been playing devil’s advocate? Miscarriage is accidental while abortion is intentional, thus there is no comparison. At best you could call miscarriage a spontaneous abortion. It’s usually a natural loss and is defined as such. I wouldn’t call miscarriage manslaughter anymore than I would any other accident resulting in a death.

No I won’t agree to disagree. You’re bold and wrong and I’m no pushover buddy.

——————————————————-

At 11:40 AM, Anonymous said…

Well- for all the arguments that circulate endlessly..here’s a good sign for the prolife:
Sunday Express 22/04/07.
Dr Adrian Marks GP says:
‘Abortion:
Lets start to say NO’
Strangely..I can’t find the on-line version..but will try to get the pdf file from the publishers and send it in.
My point? ..women and the ‘law’ can’t,in the end,keep this fraud up against the medics- when they’ve also had enough of industrial strength birth control..like most decent people on here!
I see con-currently the debate is now shifting to allowing nurses in on the duty if others,more highly qualified,opt out in too large numbers.This cuts across the ethical/medical boundaries rather too much to be a runner-I sincerely hope…
5k

——————————————————-

At 4:42 PM, Anonymous said…

Duncan..here’s the important article by the conscientious Dr A Marks.
Linked for your site
http://new.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/5664
The wheel is turning…5k

——————————————————-

At 4:01 AM, Plumpdn said…

Wow! Your mother must REALLY have treated YOU badly. I hope you are at least gay so you can have some love in your life. Otherwise, you are entirely too angry to connect with anyone. Poor guy. You know, they sell cock sleeves that simulate sex for guys. I hear a good one is the “fleshlight.”

——————————————————-

At 11:10 AM, Anonymous said…

Quote: I hear a good one is the “fleshlight.”

Option sounds safer, more attractive and loads cheaper than you Hon!
Oh! ..and whilst ‘ON topic’ it will NEVER need any abortion tools included in the package. Nuff said…

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: